------
Page 66:
"Healthcare data is increasingly held across sectors – public NHS organisations as well as
private individuals and providers. In that context, encouraging data to be shared to derive
maximum value requires an intellectual property rights ownership model that aligns
private interests (e.g. in privacy and commercial sensitivity) with social interest in
generating collaborative uses of data."P.33:

"Data that is derived from the activity of citizens must be seen as being at least co-owned
by them and returning value to them, though the investment of business in collecting and
processing the data should also be respected. There are government initiatives such as
Midata, a government led project that works with businesses to give consumers better
access to the electronic personal data that companies hold about them. The project
recognises that data about citizens belongs to them and that they should have a way of
claiming and using their ownership. Midata is currently about empowering consumers –
government itself should explicitly embrace the Midata initiative to empower citizens by
returning key data it holds on citizens back to them."

----------
Apple's "willingness" specified:
"Apple had declared that it would be willing to be bound by a determination of the FRAND royalties by the German court". Further, from the Memo:"By contrast, a potential licensee which remains passive and unresponsive to a request to enter into licensing negotiations or is found to employ clear delaying tactics cannot be generally considered as willing."Moreover, specifically to the relevance of the so-called German "Orange Book" case-law on injunctions:
"The 2009 "Orange Book" ruling of the German Supreme Court established that a potential licensee can raise a competition law defence against an application for an injunction by showing that (i) it has made an unconditional offer to license under terms that cannot be rejected by the patent-holder without abusing its dominant position, and (ii) it actually acted as if had entered into a valid patent licence. The Supreme Court's ruling did not specifically relate to SEPs. The Commission's preliminary view is that an interpretation of that ruling whereby a willing licensee is essentially not entitled to challenge the validity and essentiality of the SEPs in question is potentially anti-competitive."